I think CLIR's fiscal sponsorship fee is amazingly generous to us.

And ALA's 26.4% of gross revenue is very high when considered as a fiscal
sponsorship fee. Fiscal sponsorship fees in general 501c3 world are
typically 9-15%[1], often on the low end of that.

Of course, ALA probably doesn't consider it a fiscal sponsorship fee
exactly is part of why it seems high when looked at like that. They
consider it as "you an ALA interest group, you are part of ALA, and you get
benefits including non-tangible ones from just being part of ALA, and
identify with ALA, and ALA takes 26.4% of ALA sub-project/"interest group"
revenue to support the parent organization." That may in fact be most of
what ALA's revenue comes from, revenue from sub-parts like this.  It's more
'becoming part of ALA' than a fiscal sponsorship.

I think the CLIR fiscal sponsorship offer, in both monetary and other
aspects, is really quite generous. They are making it for mission-driven
reasons, charging the least they can get away with, and being transparent
about that -- I like that the insurance is just a pass-through, they need
it, whatever it is they pass through.  ALA's offer is less generous, and I
don't think we have community interest in becoming part of ALA.

[1]
http://www.fiscalsponsors.org/pages/10-questions-potential-projects-should-ask-fiscal-sponsor

Jonathan



On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 12:48 PM, Jonathan Rochkind <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> Thanks!
>
> On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 12:35 PM, Coral Sheldon-Hess <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Sorry, I meant "the least we could do for the people who are compelled to
>> be members," NOT "the least we could do for ALA/LITA." (As the person who
>> pulled together the LITA part of the report, obviously I am aware that we
>> owe LITA significantly more than that if they are our fiscal sponsor.)
>>
>> I see no reason to be coy about the math, though. Quotes below come from
>> the report:
>>
>> If we went with ALA/LITA, we would gain "ALA’s tax-exempt status and
>> liability insurance," and we would pay "ALA’s overhead rate for fiscal
>> years 2017 and 2018 [which] will be 26.4% of gross revenue."
>>
>> If we went with DLF/CLIR, "CLIR would strongly recommend/request that
>> Code4Lib obtain event insurance for future conferences. CLIR has
>> experience
>> with purchasing event insurance for other conferences such as the DLF
>> Forum, and can provide recommendations to Code4Lib about options."
>> "CLIR/DLF
>> would request payment of an annual fee of $5,000 as compensation for staff
>> time and auditor fees required for fiscal sponsor services," and "CLIR
>> would request that conference budgets be established to allow for a second
>> annual payment of at least $5,000 be deposited by Code4Lib into the "nest
>> egg" account."
>>
>> So, it's 26.4% of gross revenue versus $5k + event insurance (+ another
>> $5k
>> that goes into savings for us). It's been a while since I've looked at
>> conference budget numbers. I believe Jonathan is correct that CLIR/DLF
>> comes out to a smaller annual fee, given the current size of our budget,
>> but someone who has access to those numbers might want to confirm.
>>
>> Best,
>> Coral
>>
>
>